California Employment Law Report

Finding the Next Steve Jobs - Nolan Bushnell

Anthony Zaller — Mon, 20 May 2013 12:38:20 -0800

Who was the first person to recognize Steve Jobs’ potential and offer him a job? It was Nolan Bushnell. By the way, Bushnell is also the founder of Atari, co-inventor of the video game Pong, founder of Chuck E. Cheese, and is a serial entrepreneur. Given Bushnell’s track record in business, and having the badge of honor of the first person to hire Steve Jobs is more than enough evidence that managers, CEO’s, and human resources personnel should listen to his thoughts on hiring.

Bushnell’s recently published book, Finding the Next Steve Jobs, sets forth what he refers to as “pongs”, or general flexible rules managers should abide by in order to find, hire, and retain the best and most creative employees. I starting reading the book after I was fortunate enough to meet Nolan at Paul Allen's Living Computer Museum opening in April [see picture - from left to right: Chris Espinosa (Apple's 8th employee), Nolan Bushnell, Bob Frankston (co-creator of VisiCalc), Robert Zaller (co-founder of MITS and co-inventor of the Altair), me, and Eric Zaller]. Bushnell makes some excellent points in regards to finding and hiring the best and most creative employees and provides some examples on how to interview applicants to see their true personalities. The following are a few points Bushnell discusses in the book, and a very good reminder to anyone involved in the hiring process.

Creative employees are arrogant.
Only the arrogant have the strength to push for their ideas. They will continue to push their ideas far past the point any other individual would have relinquished to the pressure to give in or to conform to the “norm.” Arrogance does have its place, it is the vehicle creatives use when their solutions do not match anyone else’s views, which must be the case by definition of being creative. I’ve written before that arrogance can buy a company a lot of lawsuits, especially if a manager or the CEO is arrogant. An arrogant employee cannot create the same level of liability for a company, but they still must proactively be handled and discussed with other the other members of the team. On the other hand, managers and a CEO must be able to manage their arrogance in order to avoid looking like a bully, buying the company a lot of litigation.

Hire creative people and find a position for them. Don’t hire for a position.
Bushnell advocates the idea that a company can find great employees through everyday interactions with people. The truly creative and passionate people will standout, it does not matter what job they are doing, their skills will carry over to their work in any job.

Ignore the applicant’s resume during the interview.
Bushnell also provides some great examples of how to conduct an interview to determine if the applicant is a good fit for the company. He recommends asking applicants about their top ten favorite books, listening to how they describe their life (“The passionless tend to be blamers.”), and asking applicants questions that have no right answers. This allows the interviewer to see how the applicant analyses a problem.

Finding the Next Steve Jobs is a great resource for anyone in the human resources profession, and for anyone who has the responsibility of finding great employees for their company.

Reporting Time Pay - Aleman v. AirTouch

Anthony Zaller — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:07:34 -0800

Employees of AirTouch who worked for the cellular provider filed a putative class action alleging that the AirTouch employees were entitled to additional wages under California’s “reporting time pay” requirements. The plaintiffs alleged that they were owed reporting time pay for days on which they were required to attend store meetings, which lasted only a short period of time, but were not scheduled to work after the meetings.

California law requires an employer to pay “reporting time pay” under the applicable Wage Order, which states:

Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee's usual or scheduled day's work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day's work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee's regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

AirTouch would schedule store meetings that all employees were required to attend. The meetings were scheduled at least four days in advance and were usually held on a Saturday or Sunday before the stores opened. The meetings lasted from one hour to an hour and a half. Plaintiffs argued because the employees were required to report for the work meetings, which only lasted one to one and a half hours, and then did not work after the meetings, the employees were entitled to two hours of pay under the reporting time pay requirement.

In rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the Wage Orders required employers to always pay employees two hours of work when required to report to work, the court stated the following:

To simplify, the issue may be framed by the following question: If an employee's only scheduled work for the day is a mandatory meeting of one and a half hours, and the employee works a total of one hour because the meeting ends a half hour early, is the employer required to pay reporting time pay pursuant to subdivision 5(A) of Wage Order 4 in addition to the one hour of wages?

The answer to this question is no, because the employee was furnished work for more than half the scheduled time. The employee would be entitled to receive one hour of wages for the actual time worked, but would not be entitled to receive additional compensation as reporting time pay. Although somewhat lengthy and cumbersome, Wage Order 4's reporting time pay provision is not ambiguous. There is only one reasonable interpretation of subdivision 5(A) as it pertains to scheduled work—when an employee is scheduled to work, the minimum two-hour pay requirement applies only if the employee is furnished work for less than half the scheduled time.

It is important to note a few critical facts of this case. The employer scheduled the meeting times and provided employees with at least four days’ notice of the scheduled meetings. Also, the employees always worked at least half the duration of each scheduled period for the meetings. The case, Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular can be read here.

5 compliance issues California employers need to audit at least once a year

Anthony Zaller — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:29:41 -0800

Your company has updated its employee handbook, but the work is not over in California. Here are a few reminders of additional steps employers should review after conducting a handbook update and on a periodic basis. Of course this list is not comprehensive, but it comprises of a few items that sometimes take a backseat to the employee handbook update.

1. Ensure wage notice statements are issued and are correct.

Labor Code section 2810.5 requires employers to provide written notice to employees about specific employment items. For example, the law requires that employers provide notice to employees of their rate(s) of pay, designated pay day, the employer’s intent to claim allowances (meal or lodging allowances) as part of the minimum wage, and the basis of wage payment (whether paying by hour, shift, day, week, piece, etc.), including any applicable rates for overtime. The notice must also contain the employer's "doing business as" names, and that it be provided at the time of hiring and within 7 days of a change if the change is not listed on the employee’s pay stub for the following pay period. The recommended notice published by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement can be downloaded here. Also the DLSE publishes frequently asked questions that address many issues regarding the notice here.

2. Start Using New Form I-9 By May 7, 2013.

By May 7, 2013, employers will be required to use the new I-9 Form. The new Form I-9 can be downloaded from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website here. It would be a good time to review the “Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9” published by the USCIS.

3. Place all commission agreements in writing.

Beginning January 1, 2013, when an employee is paid commissions, the employer must provide a written contract setting forth the method the commissions will be computed and paid. The written agreement must be signed by both the employer and employee. Commission wages are “compensation paid to any person for services rendered in the sale of such employer’s property or services and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof.” Commissions do not include (1) short-term productivity bonuses, (2) temporary, variable incentive payment that increase, but do not decrease, payment under the written contract, and (3) bonus and profit-sharing plans, unless there has been an offer by the employer to pay a fixed percentage of sales or profits as compensation for work to be performed.

4. Conduct pay stub audit.

Under Labor Code 226, employers must keep copies of employees’ itemized pay statements for at least three years, at the site of employment or at a central location within the state of California. The law was amended, and as January 1, 2013 it clarifies that the term “copy” means either a duplicate of the statements provided to employees, or a computer generated record that shows all information required under Labor Code 226. In addition, the law sets a new deadline for employers to either provide a copy or permit the employee to inspect the personnel file within 30 days after the employer receives the request.

5. Ensure all personnel records are maintained properly.

When reviewing which records should be maintained in an employee’s personnel file, it is important to keep in mind why an employer would ever have to produce a personnel file – to support its employment based decisions. Therefore, employers should typically maintain personnel files with the following documents: signed arbitration agreements, sexual harassment compliance records for supervisors, sign acknowledgements of policy by employee (for example, confidentiality/proprietary information agreements, meal and rest break acknowledgments, handbook acknowledgments), Wage Theft Protection Act notice, commission agreements signed by both the employer and employee, warnings and disciplinary action documents, performance reviews, documents of any grievance concerning the employee, documents pertaining to when the employee was hired, records pertaining to last day of work and documenting reason for departure from employment.

Employee's medical marijuana use is not covered by disability laws

Anthony Zaller — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:51:05 -0800

An employer is not required to allow employees to use medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation under California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA). The California Supreme Court held that it is not a violation of California law for an employer to terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana, even though the employee was prescribed the marijuana for medical purposes under California’ Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

The case, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., addressed the conflict between California's Compassionate Use Act, (which gives a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes on a physician’s recommendation a defense to certain state criminal charges and permission to possess the drug) and Federal law (which prohibits the drug’s possession, even by medical users). Ragingwire terminated plaintiff’s employment based on a positive test for marijuana even through the plaintiff provided a doctor’s note explaining that he was prescribed marijuana to alleviate back pains.

The Supreme Court explained that the employer's decision to terminate plaintiff was not illegal:

Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees. Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions. (Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846, 882-883.)

Plaintiff’s position might have merit if the Compassionate Use Act gave marijuana the same status as any legal prescription drug. But the act’s effect is not so broad. No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law (21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 844(a)), even for medical users (see Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. 1, 26-29; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, supra, 532 U.S. 483, 491-495). Instead of attempting the impossible, as we shall explain, California’s voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees.

The Court also provided that a reasonable accommodation, as required under California’s FEHA, does not include an employer’s permission to use illegal drugs:

The FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs. The point is perhaps too obvious to have generated appellate litigation, but we recognized it implicitly in Loder v. City of Glendale, supra, 14 Cal.4th 846 (Loder). Among the questions before us in Loder was whether an employer could require prospective employees to undergo testing for illegal drugs and alcohol, and whether the employer could have access to the test results, without violating California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.). We determined that an employer could lawfully do both. In reaching this conclusion, we relied on a regulation adopted under the authority of the FEHA (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7294.0, subd. (d); see Gov. Code, § 12935, subd. (a)) that permits an employer to condition an offer of employment on the results of a medical examination. (Loder, at p. 865; see also id. at pp. 861-862.) We held that such an examination may include drug testing and, in so holding, necessarily recognized that employers may deny employment to persons who test positive for illegal drugs. The employer, we explained, was “seeking information that [was] relevant to its hiring decision and that it legitimately may ascertain.” (Id. at p. 883, fn. 15.) We determined the employer’s interest was legitimate “[i]n light of the well-documented problems that are associated with the abuse of drugs and alcohol by employees — increased absenteeism, diminished productivity, greater health costs, increased safety problems and potential liability to third parties, and more frequent turnover . . . .” (Id. at p. 882, fn. omitted.) We also noted that the plaintiff in that case had “cite[d] no authority indicating that an employer may not reject a job applicant if it lawfully discovers that the applicant currently is using illegal drugs or engaging in excessive consumption of alcohol.” (Id. at p. 883, fn. 15.) The employer’s legitimate concern about the use of illegal drugs also led us in Loder to reject the claim that preemployment drug testing violated job applicants’ state constitutional right to privacy. (Id. at pp. 887-898; see Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)

(footnote omitted).

The plaintiff also alleged a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Generally, at-will employees can terminate or be terminated from their job at any time, but an employer cannot terminate an employee for reasons that violate a fundamental public policy of the state. The Court rejected plaintiff’s position that there was a fundamental public policy that permitted him to use medical marijuana and be under its influence while at work. The Court stated, “Nothing in the [Compassionate Use Act’s] text or history indicates the voters intended to articulate any policy concerning marijuana in the employment context, let alone a fundamental public policy requiring employers to accommodate marijuana use by employees."

A further clarification that medical marijuana use is not protected under disability laws came in 2012 from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held individuals seeking to stop cities from closing medical marijuana dispensaries under Title II of the ADA were not protected by under the ADA. The case is James v. City of Costa Mesa, which held that the ADA does not protect against discrimination on the basis of marijuana use, even though permitted under certain circumstances under California law, marijuana use is not authorized by federal law, and therefore is not protected under the ADA. It is therefore likely that a court would also recognize that a patron does not have a right under Title III of the ADA, which applies to public accommodations, to use medical marijuana in public establishments, like restaurants.

Reminder: Webinar On Social Media Under California Law Tomorrow

Anthony Zaller — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:33:45 -0800

This will be one of our most attended webinars, and there is still time to sign up. The webinar will cover legal issues facing California employers under the new Labor Code section prohibiting employers from asking applicants and employees for social media passwords, privacy issues when conducting background checks, alternatives to social media policies, and when policies addressing these issues are necessary. It is taking place at 10:00 a.m. PST January 15. Visit our website for registration information.

Can California employers monitor employees' internet usage under new Labor Code section 980?

Anthony Zaller — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:39:51 -0800

California passed a new law taking effect January 1, 2013 that prohibits employers from “requiring or requesting” employees and applicants to provide their passwords to social media accounts. This law was passed after a few cases made the news where employers were actually asking for this information. As I argued before, this law was probably not necessary as California law probably already prohibited this type of conduct to begin with.

However, now that the law is taking effect, there are also new questions that employers are facing under the law. For example, if an employer has the right policies in place that limit an employee’s expectation of privacy, it is pretty well established that the employer may monitor the employee’s internet use and record this. However, under the new law, what if an employee accesses their social media accounts during work? Or on a break? Can employers still monitor employees and record the employee’s login and password information?

I would argue that employers can still monitor employees’ internet use as long as they have made the proper disclosures through a handbook or policies that limit the employees’ expectation of privacy in using the company network or computers. The new law only prohibits employers from requiring employees to divulge their passwords. If the employer notifies the employees that it is recording all activity by the employees on the company network or computers, then the employees have made a voluntary decision to continue to access their account knowing that their employer is monitoring and/or recording the activity. Granted, the law is just going into effect next week, so obviously there is no case law to rely upon in making this argument, so employer will have to wait to see how the law is ultimately interpreted by the courts.

[image: topgold]

Zuckerberg's lesson in online privacy - does it exist?

Anthony Zaller — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:14:28 -0800

There was a good reminder to everyone over Christmas about online “privacy.” Randi Zuckerberg, the sister of Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a picture of her and her family on FB, and it was shared by another person on twitter. The photo was one of the Zuckerberg family using Facebook’s new Poke functionality (which by the way, is a way to send pictures through Facebook that are deleted from the recipient’s machine after a set period of time). A third party posted Randi’s photo online, and Randi’s apparently did not like the fact that the photo was reposted. Randi did not know how the third party got a copy of the picture, but it became apparent that the third party was connect to Randi through a mutual friend and saw the picture posted in her newsfeed. After the issue of how the picture was shared and it was not the result of some underhanded means to gain access to the picture, Randi still commented that people should “always ask permission before posting a friend’s photo publicly.”

I think there is another lesson here that I’ve preached about before: everything you post on the internet is public – even if you think you are only sharing it with your “friends.” However, there is a dichotomy of views that is becoming more apparent. Even though posting items on the internet makes them public to a lot of people to see – maybe even more people than you imagine as Randi’s case shows – there is still an increasing sense that people have a privacy interest in their information posted on the internet. For example, California’s new law (Labor Code section 980) making it illegal in a couple of days for employers to ask applicants or employees for their social media passwords in order to conduct a background check on the applicant/employee. This is also apparent in Randi’s comment that her picture, posted on Facebook and which her “friends” could see, still thought she has some privacy expectation in the photo. Mathew Ingram at Gigaom believes that privacy online is becoming more complicated. I have to agree – with laws being passed like California’s law prohibiting employers from asking for social media passwords, what could be considered private online is becoming more complex.

[image: marsmet481]

Everything Employers Need To Know About Social Media In the Workplace In 2013

Anthony Zaller — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:12:10 -0800

I will be conducting a webinar on January 15, 2013 on legal issues of social media in the workplace. The presentation will cover everything a California employer needs to know about social media in the modern workplace of 2013:

Discussion on the new law (Labor Code section 960) that prohibits employers from asking applicants and employees for their social media passwords taking effect on January 1, 2013.
How to avoid invading employees’ privacy rights when using social media for background checks.
Developments on how the NLRB held that some social media policies restrict an employee’s right to “engage in concerted activities.”
How to use the Internet to properly conduct a background check for applicant.
Discussion on whether your company needs a social media policy.
Evaluating whether an employer may be held liable for failing to use social media and the Internet to conduct a background check.
Alternatives to social media policies.

The cost is $150 (this is waived for clients). You may register below, or send me an email if you are a client.

This webinar has been preapproved by HRCI for 1 recertification credit hour.

"The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute's criteria to be pre-approved for recertification credit."

Seminar - Restaurant Management: Operations, Systems & Financial Controls

Anthony Zaller — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:56:55 -0800

I wanted to let readers know that a friend of the firm, Krost, Baumgarten, Kniss & Guerrero will be hosting a restaurant seminar at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood for restaurant operators. The seminar covers invaluable and informative topics such as restaurant financial analysis, profit and loss systems, tax issues, menu analysis, payroll controls, and upcoming trends in the industry. It is a great way for operators to learn how to become more profitable in the restaurant industry. More information about the event can be found here (PDF).

Time: Monday January 28, 2013 beginning at 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Readers of the Employment Law Report are eligible to receive a discount of $25 per person. To register, contact Daryle at Krost, Baumgarten, Kniss & Guerrero.

Surprise - Employers Face New Employee Personnel Records Obligations in 2013, But The Term "Personnel Records" Is Not Defined

Anthony Zaller — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:23:47 -0800

California employers face a law (AB 2674) taking effect on January 1, 2013 (click here for a list of other new employment laws effective in 2013), which changes their duties to maintain and provide personnel records to current and former employees. The law amends Labor Code section 1198.5 pertaining to "personnel records". When discussing this new law, I am getting the question of what documents should be included in an employee’s personnel file, and what exactly are "personnel records" under this Labor Code provision. To many employers' surprise, although the term “personnel file” or “personnel records” is used throughout the Labor Code, the term is never explicitly defined.

The Labor Code provides some guidance for employers by setting for what employees are not entitled to inspect. Labor Code section 1198.5, which provides the employee with certain rights regarding inspection of “personnel records”, does exclude certain records from this right to inspection. Under this section, employees do not have the right to inspect (1) records relating to the investigation of a possible criminal offense; (2) letters of reference; (3) ratings, reports, or records that were: obtained prior to the employee’s employment, prepared by identifiable examination committee members, or obtained in connection with a promotional examination.

Without the terms “personnel records” or “personnel file” ever being defined, there is considerable ambiguity about what documents should be keep in an employee’s personnel file.

While not legally binding on employers, there is some guidance from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (“DLSE”) website (caution: at the time of this writing, the DLSE has not updated its website to reflect the new changes in the law):

Categories of records that are generally considered to be "personnel records" are those that are used or have been used to determine an employee’s qualifications for promotion, additional compensation, or disciplinary action, including termination. The following are some examples of "personnel records" (this list is not all inclusive):

Application for employment

Payroll authorization form

Notices of commendation, warning, discipline, and/or termination

Notices of layoff, leave of absence, and vacation

Notices of wage attachment or garnishment

Education and training notices and records

Performance appraisals/reviews

Attendance records

It is important to keep in mind why an employer would ever have to produce a personnel file – to support its employment based decisions. Therefore, employers should typically maintain personnel files with the following documents:

Signed arbitration agreements
Sexual harassment compliance records for supervisors
Sign acknowledgements of policy by employee (for example, confidentiality/proprietary information agreements, meal and rest break acknowledgments, handbook acknowledgments)
Wage Theft Protection Act notice
If commissioned employee, written commission agreement signed by both the employer and employee beginning January 1, 2013.
Warnings and disciplinary action documents.
Performance reviews
Documents of any grievance concerning the employee
Documents pertaining to when the employee was hired
Records pertaining to last day of work and documenting reason for departure from employment

Employers typically should not keep the following information in an employee’s personal file:

Form I-9s
EEOC and DFEH charges of discrimination
Workers’ compensation information
Private medical information
Any information obtained prior to offering the employee a position

Given the ambiguity about the definition of personnel file, employers should take time to consider their operations and industry to develop a system ensures the same documents for each employee are maintained in their personnel files, and what other files need to be established for employees. Also, employers need to design and implement a personnel file retention policy that will maintain the critical documents that would be relevant should the need to defend an employment claim arise. It is important that this process be established in order to survive any potential change in management and/or the human resource functions in the company.

New Laws Facing California Employers In 2013

Anthony Zaller — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:07:44 -0800

There are some significant changes regarding California employers’ duties in 2013. This list is an overview of the major changes that employers should consider and be aware of at the beginning of 2013.

Employers Cannot Ask Applicants Or Employees For Social Media Passwords – AB 1844
This law created Labor Code section 980, which is effective 1/1/2013. The law prohibits employers from asking employees or applicants for passwords to their social media accounts, accessing their accounts in the presence of the employer, or divulging any personal social media. There are two exceptions to this: (1) if the request is made to a current employee as part of an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or violation of law, and the request is based upon a reasonable belief that the information is relevant, and (2) to devices issued by the employer.

Commission Agreements Must Be In Writing – AB 1396 and 2675
Beginning 1/1/2013, when an employee is paid commissions, the employer must provide a written contract setting forth the method the commissions will be computed and paid. The written agreement must be signed by both the employer and employee. Commission wages are “compensation paid to any person for services rendered in the sale of such employer’s property or services and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof.” Commissions do not include (1) short-term productivity bonuses, (2) temporary, variable incentive payment that increase, but do not decrease, payment under the written contract, and (3) bonus and profit-sharing plans, unless there has been an offer by the employer to pay a fixed percentage of sales or profits as compensation for work to be performed.

Breastfeeding is added to definition of “sex” under the Fair Employment and Housing Act - AB 2386
The new law clarifies that the definition of sex under the FEHA includes breastfeeding and any medical conditions relating to breastfeeding. This amendment makes breastfeeding and the related medical conditions, a protected activity and therefore employers cannot discriminate or retaliate against employees on this basis under California law. While the amendment is effective 1/1/13, the law states that the amendment simply is a statement of existing law, and therefore employers should treat this amendment as existing law immediately.

New Religious and Dress Standards – AB 1964
The new law clarifies that religious dress and grooming practices are protected under FEHA. The law explains that “religious dress practice” is “shall be construed broadly to include the wearing or carrying of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, artifacts, and any other item that is part of the observance by an individual of his or her religious creed.” The law continues in defining religious grooming as: “Religious grooming practice shall be construed broadly to include all forms of head, facial, and body hair that are part of the observance by an individual of his or her religious creed.” The law also states that it is not a reasonable accommodation it the action requires segregation of the individual from the public or other employees.

Changes in Calculating Employees’ Regular Rate of Pay – AB 2103
The new law revises Labor Code 515(d) to clarify that “payment of a fixed salary to a nonexempt employee shall be deemed to provide compensation only for the employee's regular, nonovertime hours, notwithstanding any private agreement to the contrary.” Therefore, overtime must be paid above any nonexempt employee’s agreed upon salary. This law was in response to the court opinion in Arechiga v. Dolores Press. The legislature history described the opinion in Arechiga as follows:

In the Arechiga case, a janitor and his employer agreed that payment of a fixed salary of $880 a week would provide compensation for 66 hours of work each week. The Court of Appeal held that this method of payment comported with California overtime law, and that no additional overtime compensation was owed. The Court rejected the employee's contention that existing Labor Code Section 515(d) prohibits any sort of agreement that would allow a fixed salary to serve as a non-exempt employee’s compensation for anything more than a 40 hour workweek.

New Penalties For Violations On Itemized Wages Statements – SB 1255
The new law provides that employees are deemed to have suffered injury for purposes of assessing penalties pursuant to Labor Code 226(a), if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information. Furthermore, a violation occurs if the employee cannot easily determine from the wage statement alone the amount of the gross or net wages earned, the deductions the employer made from the gross wages to determine the net wages paid, the name and address of the employer or legal entity employing the employee, and the name and only the last 4 digits of the employee.

New Requirements On Retention And Inspection of Itemized Wage Statements and Personnel Files– AB 2674
Under Labor Code 226, employers must keep copies of employees’ itemized pay statements for at least three years, at the site of employment or at a central location within the state of California. The new law, effective 1/1/13, clarifies that the term “copy” means either a duplicate of the statements provided to employees, or a computer generated record that shows all information required under Labor Code 226. In addition, the law sets a new deadline for employers to either provide a copy or permit the employee to inspect the personnel file within 30 days after the employer receives the request. The employer and employee may only agree to extend this time period out to 35 days. The employer may also redact the names of any non-supervisory employees in the file. It is important to note, this requirement does not change the 21 day time period to produce or make available for inspection an employee’s itemized wage statements under Labor Code 226(c).

Itemized Wage Statements And Wage Theft Notices For Temporary Service Employers – AB 1744
This new law requires temporary service employers to provide wage statements that list the rate of pay and total hours worked for each temporary assignment. A “temporary service employer” is defined in Labor Code 201.3(a)(1) as a company that contracts with customers to supply workers to perform services for the customer. This is effective 7/1/2013. Furthermore, the law requires temporary services employer to provide Wage Theft Notices required under 2810.5 and include additional information regarding the name, the physical address of the main office, the mailing address if different from the physical address of the main office, and the telephone number of the legal entity for whom the employee will perform work, and any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary. This requirement is effective on 1/1/2013.

Reminder To Carefully Draft Executive Agreements - Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc.

Anthony Zaller — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:24:19 -0800

The judgment against the defendant for $1,347,000 in Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc. should be a good reminder for companies to have well drafted executive agreements. Faigin worked as General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer for Fremont General, a parent corporation. Defendant had various subsidiary companies that Faigin also worked for during his employment. Faigin entered into an employment contract with Fremont General. The agreement set forth that Faigin would be entitled to certain benefits if he was involved in an “involuntary termination.” If he was involuntarily terminated, as defined in the agreement, the company agreed to pay Faigin a lump sum equal to three years of his base salary.

After entering into the agreement with Fremont General, Faigin was appointed to interim President and Chief Executive Officer of FRC, a subsidiary of Fremont General. A short time after assuming these roles, Faigain was replaced at FRC. Faigin argued that his dismissal from his roles at FRC resulted in an involuntary termination under the term of his employment contract, entitling him to three years of his salary which exceeded $400,000 per year.

At trial, FRC argued that the employment agreement entered into with Fremont General did not apply to the situation arising out of Faigin’s employment with FRC because the agreement was only entered into with Fremont General, not FRC. The trial court agreed, and excluded any evidence of the employment agreement between Faigin and Fremont General. However, Faigin presented evidence that FRC created an implied-in-fact employment contract that he would only be terminated for good cause. As the court noted, an implied-in-fact employment contract can be established by showing the following:

The existence and content of such an agreement are determined from the totality of the circumstances, including the employer’s personnel policies and practices, the employee’s length of service, actions and communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and practices in the relevant industry. The question whether such an implied-in-fact agreement exists is a factual question for the trier of fact unless the undisputed facts can support only one reasonable conclusion.

An implied-in-fact agreement to terminate only for good cause cannot arise if there is an express writing to the contrary, such as a written acknowledgement that employment is at will or an at-will provision in a written employment agreement. “There cannot be a valid express contract and an implied contract, each embracing the same subject, but requiring different results. [Citations.]”

(Citations omitted). The court stated that because the employment agreement with Fremont General fixed the term of employment at three years and did not provide that Faigin’s employment was at-will, this written agreement is not inconsistent with the jury’s finding of an implied-in-fact agreement existed.

The case shows how careful employers need to be in drafting executive compensation agreements, and especially if the executive is working for different subsidiaries of a parent company.

Health Care Reform and The Affordable Care Act - Webinar

Anthony Zaller — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:11:37 -0800

It is time to start planning for how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, will effect your business. Peterson Milaney Associates, will be hosting a webinar on the new law and what employers need to start planning for now. The webinar is taking place on Monday, December 3, at 10:00 a.m.

The webinar is free for readers of the blog. Registration is here.

Can California Labor Code Provisions Apply To Non-resident Employees Working in California?

Anthony Zaller — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:26:28 -0800

Given the increasing mobility of the workforce, the issue of which state’s laws apply to a traveling employee is becoming more and more common. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the California Supreme Court held that California-based employers must pay non-resident employees working in California according to the California’s overtime laws. That means that a California employer who has employees travel to California to work must pay the employees according to California’s wage and hour laws – not pursuant to the laws from the state that the employee is from. The Court emphasized California’s strong public policies in place to protect the employees.

This holding was again recognized in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court. The Court in See’s Candy stated, “We agree with [the Plaintiff] that under Sullivan a California employer generally must pay all employees, including nonresident employees working in California, state overtime wages unless the employee is exempt.” While the issue in See’s Candy was whether an employer’s time-keeping rounding policy complied with California law, the case is a good reminder that the analysis of which state’s employment laws apply to employees is simply more than looking up where the employee live.

Proposed Bill Gives NLRB And OSHA Right To Review Emails And Other Electronic Information Without Search Warrant

Anthony Zaller — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:35:45 -0800

There is concern about a bill making its way through the Senate that would drastically change individuals’ privacy interest in their internet communications and “cloud” information. The bill, named the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2011, originally started out as offering more protection to individuals, but after law enforcement expressed its concerns about the bill, it was rewritten to allow more than 22 governmental agencies to search e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook posts, and direct messages through Twitter.

Other than lowering everyone’s privacy rights in this information, why would employers have any concern about the bill? The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is one of the governmental agencies expressly listed as having the power to search this electronic information without a search warrant. In addition the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would also have the warrantless subpoena power should the bill pass. This would give the NLRB and OSHA unprecedented access into a private employer's e-mails and any other information stored in the cloud.

Under the bill, anyone who sends email or stores information in the cloud would be given less privacy than if the information was stored on a hard drive kept in the office or home. Many companies, such as Google and Apple, who are touting new cloud services are fighting hard to protect the information individuals store in the cloud because a decrease in privacy of cloud based information would likely reduce the consumer demand for the services.

Further diminishing companies’ and individuals’ privacy rights, there has been an argument which was upheld by a federal district court in Oregon in 2009, that the government does not have to give notice to the individual or company to search e-mails or other electronic information, even when the agency has a search warrant. The court held that the notice requirements under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Fourth Amendment is satisfied when the only the internet service provider who is storing the information is served with a search warrant.

The vote on the proposed bill is scheduled for Thursday, November 29, 2012.

NLRB Issues New Memo On Validity of Social Media Policies

Anthony Zaller — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:10:29 -0800

In October 2012 the National Labor Relations Board issued an advice memorandum regarding whether an employer’s social media policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). This memorandum is of importance because the NLRB has issued findings recently that employer’s seemingly neutral social media policies violated employees’ rights under the NLRA. Section 7 of the NLRA provides that employees have the right to self-organize, form, join or assist labor organizations, and generally “engage in other concerted activities.” Section 8 of the NLRA makes it unlawful for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” This prohibits applies to all employers, even if the employees are not unionized.

In the memorandum the NLRB sets forth its two step analysis in determining whether a “work rule” “would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” First, the NLRB examine whether the rule “is clearly unlawful if it explicitly restricts Section 7 protected activities.” Second, the rule is examined to determine if “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” While the Board said that a rule “that could conceivably be read to restrict Section 7 activity” would does not automatically violate the NLRA, but if the rule is ambiguous and contains no limiting language or context to clarify that it does not restrict their Section 7 rights would be in violation.

The case at issue in the memorandum involved Cox Communications. The company had a standard social media policy:

Nothing in Cox’s social media policy is designed to interfere with, restrain, or prevent employee communications regarding wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. Cox Employees have the right to engage in or refrain from such activities. . . .

DO NOT make comments or otherwise communicate about customers, coworkers, supervisors, the Company, or Cox vendors or suppliers in a manner that is vulgar, obscene, threatening, intimidating, harassing, libelous, or discriminatory on the basis of age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, disability, national origin, ethnicity, citizenship, marital status, or any other legally recognized protected basis under federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or ordinances. Those communications are disrespectful and unprofessional and will not be tolerated by the Company. . .

DO respect the laws regarding copyrights, trademarks, rights of publicity and other third-party rights. To minimize the risk of a copyright violation, you should provide references to the source(s) of information you use and accurately cite copyrighted works you identify in your online communications. Do not infringe on Cox logos, brand names, taglines, slogans, or other trademarks.

An employee was fired for violating this policy by posting an offensive and derogatory comment on his Google+ account via his cell phone. The company suspended the employee and conducted a further investigation, which revealed that the employee made numerous other posts “containing lewd language which disparaged customers.” The company terminated the employee.

Applying the analysis above to Cox Communication’s social media policy, the NLRB found that the policy did not violate the NLRA. The Board said that the examples of egregious conduct listed in Cox Communication’s policy established a context that “clearly would not be reasonably understood to restrict Section 7 activity.” Also, the policy’s savings clause that specifically set forth that it was not designed to violate any communications employees had the legal right to make, also supported the finding that it did not violate Section 7.

The NLRB memorandum can be read here (PDF).

Court Upholds Timekeeping Rounding Policies: See's Candy Shops Inc. v. Superior Court

Anthony Zaller — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:25:58 -0800

In See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court the court addressed whether an employer’s policy of rounding employee’s time clock entries to the nearest tenth of an hour. See’s Candy’s policy rounded employees’ time entries either up or down to the nearest tenth of an hour in its Kronos time keeping system. For example, if an employee clocked in at 7:58 a.m., the system rounds the time to 8:00 a.m., and if the employee clocked in at 8:02 a.m., the system rounds down the entry to 8:00 a.m.

Plaintiffs challenged this rounding policy by arguing that this policy prevented employees from receiving all of their wages twice a month as required by California law. The court noted that even though California employers “have long engaged in employee time-rounding, there is no California statue or case law specifically authorizing or prohibiting this practice.” See’s Candy argued that given this lack of clear authority on the issue, courts should adopt the federal standard, which is also used by California’s Division Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), which allows rounding.

The court agreed that time entry rounding is permissible under California law:

Relying on the DOL rounding standard, we have concluded that the rule in California is that an employer is entitled to use the nearest-tenth rounding policy if the rounding policy is fair and neutral on its face and ‘it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.’ (29 C.F.R. § 785.48; see DLSE Manual, supra, §§ 47.1, 47.2.)

See’s Candy presented evidence that across all of its employees the rounding policy actually resulted in a total gain of 2,749 hours for the class of employees involved in the litigation. Therefore, the court held that the rounding policy that rounded both up and down from the midpoint of every six minutes did not result in a loss to the employees.

It is important to note the limitation of this holding. This case involved clear evidence, presented in the form of an expert witness, establishing the effect on the total time paid to the employees did not result in a loss to the employees. Also, the rounding policy would round both up and down. Had the policy only rounded in favor of the employer, that would have violating the rule established in this case. Employers utilizing rounding for payroll must still do so with caution. For example, there should be periodic audits to ensure the effect of rounding does not favor the employer over a period of time. The opinion can be read here: See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court.

Chris Sacca - Bold Humility

Anthony Zaller — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:20:59 -0800

I had the opportunity to attend an event with Chris Sacca last night. He is a venture capitalist who has been living part-time in Los Angeles recently. He spoke about how he grew up in the investment scene in Silicon Valley. He got his feet wet in investing when he started day trading law school student loan money. By day trading, he was able to grow his net worth to $12 million. Then the bubble burst and he lost his friends’ and family’s money, and owed $4 million himself. Given that he wanted to be in the investment scene and possibly run a publicly traded company, bankruptcy was not an option. Chris began working as a corporate lawyer in Silicon Valley and worked odd jobs at night to pay back the money he owed (which he was able to negotiate down to a little more than $2 million). When he was laid off as a lawyer, he quickly had to adapt, and realized that no one wanted to work with a young guy working out of his house. He formed the Salinger Group (I use the term “formed” loosely - he just made up the name and thought it sounded good and that people would trust the name). He successfully worked his way through a number of companies, including Google and eventually became a venture capitalist. He now runs Lowercase Capital.

Here are a few points Chris made that stood out from his interview:

The startup scene in Los Angeles is alive and well. In fact Chris has raised a fund to invest in companies in Los Angeles.
Chris spoke about the sense of entitlement the younger generation has. This has turned him off of seed funding, as the entrepreneurs were insisting on a very high valuation of the company and requiring an investment decision on the spot.
Everyone needs to believe in themselves and that everyone has one thing they are good at. Chris encouraged everyone that when they are good at something, to not apologize about it, but still keep in mind that everyone can still use some help every now and then. He described his theory as “bold humility.”
Good entrepreneurs recognized they need money, and it is an important aspect of working, but more fundamentally, good entrepreneurs keep working because they like solving problems. That is why he is still working.
Successful leaders do not surround themselves with “yes men.” He learned this lesson when he made $12 million day trading. Everyone around him was telling him what a genius he was, and he said he actually started to believe it. Then the market corrected, and he realized that much of the success he had was due to his timing of the market.
He buys his trademark cowboy shirts from www.vintagewesternwear.com.

It was a great event hosted by Zefr, who provided the room, beer and pizza. More about it can be read at PandoDaily. It was great to see the startup scene in Los Angeles alive and well.

Silicon Valley Companies Sued Over Agreements Not To Hire Competitor's Employees

Anthony Zaller — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:38:29 -0800

Were Silicon Valley companies artificially keeping wages lower by having an agreement not to poach employees from competitors? This issue came to a head in 2010 when the Department of Justice settled an antitrust case with Adobe, Pixar, Google, Apple, Inuit, and Intel. The DOJ alleged that the companies had agreement not to poach each other’s employees, and that these agreements “reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees.” In the settlement with the DOJ, the companies agreed to discontinue the use of any agreements that would prevent any company from poaching employees from a competitor.

After knowledge of the DOJ case spread, a group of employees filed a class action lawsuit seeking damages by alleging that the companies violated California’s Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The case is currently pending in California’s Federal Northern District Court. The allegations made in the DOJ case and in the class action litigation argue that the companies had a “do not call” list. Under this agreement the companies agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. There have been emails disclosed in the litigation where Steve Jobs emailed Eric Schmidt asking Google to stop its employee from soliciting an Apple employee. When Schmidt informed the Google employees to stop, the Google employees responded that this was inappropriate, and the offender would be fired within the hour.

This litigation shows how valuable a company’s employees are to its productivity and how hard it is to retain employees in competitive industries. It also shows the relatively few methods employers have to retain top talent. Generally speaking, noncompetition agreements are unenforceable in California, and the allegations made in this litigation show that agreements not to poach competitor’s employees can also be challenged as violating anti-trust and unfair competition laws.

Inside Litigation Over Social Media Accounts - Why Employers Should Have Social Media Policies - Part I

Anthony Zaller — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:20:44 -0800

As previously written about on this blog, the case PhoneDog v. Kravtiz is one of the first cases in the country to deal with substantive ownership issues arising out of social media accounts used in the workplace. As companies are moving more and more away from traditional marketing and advertising towards the use of social media, it is critical that companies have an agreement with employees about a few key items regarding social media accounts, such as ownership of the social media accounts.

On the other hand, the rise social media has given individuals the ability to create a brand for themselves and establish a large following for their expertise. These individuals are hired by companies not only for their expertise on the subject matter, but also for the large group of followers they developed via social media. The followers the individuals have through Twitter, Facebook or a blog is a valuable advertising and marketing resource for a company that wishes to gain the follower’s attention. Because of this shift from traditional advertising and PR, employers and employees have to be vigilant in approaching this issue given the potentially large value social media contacts can now have in the marketplace. An employee being hired who agrees to use their social media accounts to promote the company’s business should also clearly set out at least a few issues in a written agreement.

For example, a social media agreement between and employer and employee could address at the following issues:

Ownership of the employee’s social media accounts that will be used for business purposes. Clearly spell out who owns the accounts (or license to use the accounts).
Ownership and use of the company’s social media accounts. Who retains the right to change the passwords? Who retains the right to edit and approve content? What is the process to approve content prior to publishing?
Any restrictive terms of use of the employee’s social media accounts during employment. For example, does the employer have the right to edit and review the content prior to publication?
What control, if any, the company will have after the termination of the employment relationship over the employee’s or the company’s social media accounts. Is there a time frame after employment that the employee cannot use his or her own social media accounts for competitive business uses? Employers need to be careful here, however, as limiting an employee’s use of their social media accounts may be tantamount to a prohibited non-competition agreement or in violation of other state laws. I expect that this will be another hot area of the law that will be addressed by the courts within the next few years.
It may also be useful to set a monetary value on the social media accounts. This is probably easier to negotiate among the parties prior to any dispute over the value should litigation arise later.

My next article, Part II of this series, will address what claims employers and employees would likely use during litigation over social media accounts.